A pooling of talents

by

12 December 2014

IN THE current series of Reith Lectures, Dr Atul Gawande
describes his development of a checklist for hospital procedures.
Many conditions require care from a multi-disciplinary team. The
introduction of a simple checklist, often managed by a junior
member of a surgical team, has been shown in pilots to reduce
complications by 35 per cent, and deaths by 47 per cent. A key
factor in the success of the checklist is humility: a team has to
recognise that even the most expert can fail.

A key paradox in the Green report, which introduces the Church
of England to "talent management" and is reviewed here by the Dean
of Christ Church, Oxford, is that, under the new system, 150
individuals will be picked out to be taught about collaborative
ministry. Better than its not being taught, of course, but hardly
inviting the students to model the teaching. The basic premise of
the Green report is sound and necessary: a training system that is
more robust ought to give the Church the confidence to promote
those whose lives hitherto have not provided them with management
experience. Historically, this is truer of women and those from
certain minority-ethnic backgrounds, but also, although the report
avoids saying so, those with a less privileged upbringing. There
are two concerns. One is that the criteria listed for inclusion in
the talent pool - evidence-based documentation of outstanding
performance, an "agility and capacity for intense and rapid change"
- seem to be both demanding and conventional, so that we doubt that
those who do not "fit in" will make it out of the changing room.
The other concern is that, even if those who plunge into the pool
do turn out to be more varied than before, when they emerge they
will all look the same.

As Dr Gawande demonstrates, there are other models of management
and leadership: ones that require a humility that is unlikely to be
engendered by an invitation to join an elite leadership pool. Had
Lord Green's steering group looked at the Church's systems rather
than its individuals, they might have concluded that a pool of
talent exists already in the Church, and that it is not necessary
to train individual leaders to hold every skill. When diocesan
bishops, say, function as part of a diocesan team, they will draw
on any expertise that they lack: finance, human resources, and so
on. In such a system, the concept of leadership runs counter to the
alpha-male model depicted in the Green report. Here the bishop is
an enabler, challenger, or encourager. It is probably notable that,
while the word "leader" occurs 171 times in the report, the word
"pastor" or "pastoral" does not appear once.

There is clear value in a checklist for ministerial training. It
is wise stewardship to ensure that the right skills are nurtured,
and that people are encouraged to apply for the right posts. The
present ad hoc system, which relies too heavily on being noticed or
finding favour, is inadequate. It is wise, too, to borrow best
practice from secular institutions; but it needs to be applicable
to an institution that, uniquely, follows a founder whose
evidence-based record of leadership involved abandonment and
death.